Those are goopy/paste-like, and react with the air to become firm rubber. You know, basically paste gasket maker that you get at the autoparts store. You know, the stuff you seal oil pans and differential boxes with?
As someone who makes both quality sprites in MSPaint, and who makes high detail NURBS models, I must voice my disagreement with your statement.
Creating the NURBS objects is easier.
From what I can see, the problem comes from trying to use a low polygon editor to try and make a high polygon model, that can then be printed. It's like using a butterknife like a screwdriver. You *can* do it, but the tool is not the correct one.
I use cad software to make quality objects. Being NURBS solids, I can polygonize them as tightly or as loose as I want. Also, being closed solids, I don't have flipped verticies, holes/gaps, crappy intersections, non-manifold polygons, or any of the other issues that tools like blender or milkshape end up with.
Again, it's easier (for me at least) to make nurbs objects suitable for 3d printing than it is to make good sprites in MSPaint, and I know this, because can and do both.
The real obstacle for me? It costs 1000$ minimum for a device that can just barely squirt out a.5mm dia filament of plastic, with 2.5 axis motions.
At least add a rotation table and a trunion. That way previously unbuilable models with long extremities could be built. (Think: a person with arms straight out. The plastic is too soft after extruding to stay straight with a reprap or similar. Gravity causes sag.) Just move the trunion, and build coils with rotabl syntax. Seriously though, a repurposed commodity inkjet loaded up with a solvent and binder solution, with a descending build chamber, and a canister of baby powder would give better resolutions than current consumer grade extruders. Buy a throw away lexmark and rip the shell off, then wash the carts out, cut into one and install aquarium hose stopcocks, and attach that to a big reservoir of resin and solvent. Finally, build a dropdown chamber and a blade sweeper.
Wow! You just built basically what Z-corp offers!
(Here's a hint: for most people's needs, the "binder resin + solvent" can be elmer's white glue and water. More permanent if you use woodgue instead. Doesn't have to be a plastic resin.)
Make a hacked inkjet that does this, and make it cheap (200$ MAX price) and it *will* sell.
While a convenient fallacy, that isn't exactly true.
The term "agnostic" literally means "against knowledge." Or "without knowledge."
The agnostic truely is neither theistic (asserting a diety exists) nor atheistic (asserting a diety does not exist.)
Instead, the position of the agnostic is that claiming a god exists requires knowledge. (How else can you insist it exists, without knowing something others don't?) The same is true for asserting that the nonesxistence of a deity is what is true.
The agnostic's position is literally "I don't know, but it is theoretically possible."
It is theoretically possible that a god of some form exists, has perfect knowledge of the world, and operates outside of normal time and space, resulting in all interventions by that being have the same characteristics of random chance, as measured by the universe's inhabitants.
(Here's a little game to help here. We have 2 people playing russian roulette. Presumably, there are 4 chambers that are empty, and one with a live round. They spin the chambers, and pull the trigger. They have agreed to only one turn each. The influence of this hypothetical god would simply remove the possibility of the loaded chamber being the one stopped on. The participants would simply view the outcome as improbable. The outcome is still indestiguishable from random chance, and thus can't be used as proof of this being's existence, even though it interveined.)
Such a being would fundementally leave no evidence of its existence, even while prodding the universe. Loaded questions about why "evil" exists, and why "bad things" happen are specious: I never said the deity needs to be benevolent. Benevolence is not a required criterium.
Since this deity can exist without leaving evidence, it can't be disproven. Asserting that it DOESN'T exist requires knowledge. From whence does one gain this knowledge?
Again, I do not assert that it DOES definitively exist either. That wasn't the message here. (Because that too would require knowldge, and I have none.) The point was that it COULD exist, and that no test conceivable in this universe could disprove this hypothetical being, since it leaves no evidence of its existence that we can detect, being extradimensional in nature.
As such, lacking knowledge either in support or in denunciation of such a being existing, I cannot be either a theist, who asserts it *is* real without question, or can I be an atheist who asserts that it *is not* real without question.
The question cannot be satisfactorally be answered.
I am agnostic. I am not atheist. I am not theist. Don't lump me in with either to suit your own agendas.
To assert bombastically that there are no gods, one MUST not have a belief in the existence of gods.
Thus, the subset cannot be excluded from the larger set. The subset does not have a well defined moniker. Calling them "atheists" is a crude fit, but functionally still correct. Some have suggested "strong atheists" for a better term.
Unlike the car analogy you used, (were an antiFord true believer(tm) can hold that position independently of being "anti car") the strong atheist has no rational capacity to hold their belief, without first holding the first belief.
Eg, to believe in the nonexistence of all gods, one must first have a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
They don't word it that way, because it clearly smacks of being incorrect.
Instead, they make assertions like this:
"Atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief of lack."
There is an implied exclusion: "the belief of lack is not the lack of belief", via the principle of inversion.
This does not hold, as the belief in the lack of something REQUIRES the lack of belief in that thing.
Observe:
"I don't believe in your god's divine power." (Lack of belief) "I believe your god does not exist." (Belief of lack.)
In order to hold the second, one must also hold the first. One must believe that a person's god has no power, in order to believe that their god does not exist. It is irrational to hold the latter without the former. How can something unreal, have divine power?
The no true scottsman appears, when an agent who holds both, acts on the latter, and the athiestic apologist spouts this rhetoric.
I find your hyperbole both insulting, and hypocritical.
"Unfounded" is not equivalent to "false."
This has several formal proofs to qualify it. You assertion that testable reality is true, while simultaneous commiting this logical error in such a bombastic fashion, is hypocrisy of a high order.
Undefined is undefined. False and undefined are not equivalent.
The lack of belief in a (plus) god does not preclude the belief in the (minus) god.
In fact, beleiving in the (minus) god has the lack of belief in a (plus) god as a prerequisite.
To believe no gods exist, one MUST hold no beliefs in the existence of gods.
You assertion that atheism means "I don't believe in a god", and is defacto exclusive of the "I believe in no gods" is not logical, no matter how much you try to misrepresent it as being so.
Atheism as a position does not preclude the notion of religiously thinking adherents of that position.
Dodging behind the no true scottsman is disingenuous.
Rather, you should assert that this evaluation does not apply to YOU, personally.
[To clarify: Atheism is a position: adherents of that position do not have a beleif in the existence of a deity, as stated. However, this position does NOT preclude the latter part of your statement: the belief in the nonexistence of deities. An adherent of the position can simultaneously hold both, because they are not exclusive. Asserting that individuals that have this second position are not atheists is insupportable, and draws from a false premise. The assertion that because atheism does not require this second term that the accusation is incorrect does not hold. I remand you to formal logic: "A is false AND B is true" returns true.
!A and !B == false A and !B== true !A and B == true A and B == true
Poster asserts table entry 2 above. You assert table entry 1. As stated, this is not a correct evaluation.
Because atheism as a set contains individuals who hold the lack of existence of all gods as true, and the assertion of knowledge about gods is what defines religion, those atheists are religious atheists. (Even if the claimed knowledge about such gods, is that they do not exist.)
Should said atheist wish to stamp out religion because they hold a personal BELIEF that all beliefs in a diety are madness, and need to be expunged for the greater good, they are comitting the exact same mental gymnastics that a crazy diest does to justify jihad, etc.
The fact that the beleif is NOT about supporting an unjustifiable favoritism for a specific god, but isntead about supporting the unjustifiable favoritism toward having NO gods, does NOT make it non-religious. The "religion" is the unwaivering belief that they are correct in their assertions, same as the deist, and the same as "diehard" communists, nazi socialists, whatevers.
Atheism as a religious dogma shares a closer kinship with devout practitioners of those later, clearly secular ideologies than it does with any higher power, but is still clearly a form of religous zeal, and that zeal certainly does have motivational potential.
Arguments like these attempt to claim correctness through desceptive definitions.
Asserting something as being true without supportive evidence is true belief.
Some atheists assert they cannot know definitively if a god exists or not, but that they have seen no evidence to support the assertion that one does. (Hypothetical orbital teapots, invisible unicorns, etc. One cannot prove they do not exist, but likewise, no evidence exists to say that they do exist either.) This is sensible atheism, founded on reason and rationality. They typically don't have an agenda or opinion about people who do believe in a deity. They simply don't share that belief.
Then there are "atheists" who jump the shark. They assert that belief in a deity is a form of insanity, and claim that the nonexistence of divine beings is objective fact. Such an assertion falls victim to the same illogical mental processes as fundementalist deism does. Because there *ISNT* proof of the nonexistence of such beings, their assertion is one of true beleif, and is very much religious. The 'god' they believe in is the 'anti-god', for lack of a better term. Literally, the beleif that no god exists, and that believing in one is insanity. (No holds barred, and are very rude about it.)
Usually when a deist referrs to "athiesm" as a religion, they are referring to this latter demographic.
I seem to remember going rounds with you on this before, but refusal to acknowledge the clearly religious zeal of this latter demographic is simply disingenuous.
Clearly, your mental conception of "mouse" hasn't changed from the offerings of the 90s optical wheel with rolling ball kind. The kind that required picking the mouse up, and repositioning it (several times) to get across the desktop.
You can turn a modern optical mouse's sensitivity up to the point where a simple twitch of the wrist is able to achieve this same result. I know, because I set the sensitivity up that high for just that reason. I hate trackballs, because I can't achieve the same degrees of interaction that I can with a modern optical mouse. (Like multiclick hold downs + drag)
Would I buy something that lets me use a normal monitor like a touch screen? Sure! It would make a great addition to a MAME arcade cabinet, especially the "Pacman" style "lounge table" cabinet kind (which work better in a family room anyway.) It would make ROM selection much easier.
(A trackball would suffer the same issues that the trackballs in real 80s acrade cabinets had: getting funk all up inside them, having the sensors wear out, and all that fun.)
EA wants to get paid as much as possible, while changing as little as possible. That's why they are trying a desperate gambit to jump to mobile gaming. (They believe that the mobile gaming ecosystem is more friendly to obtrusive DRM, and they are partly right.)
The GP said that voting with his dollars is working: EA games is feeling heat under the collar. However, because of the above, they purposefully look away from the burning handwriting, and feel that leaving the building is the better solution. The GP's point was that we must inform that this will not work, by continueing to ostracise them as a company, for refusing to change their core policies which are so objectionable. The fact that they are trying to jump the shark like this is evidence that they feel threatened, and that this tactic is effective.
Continue to deny the cocksuckers money, and their costly pradigm shift and phyrric restructuring will leave them hemmoraging on the table.
The false dichotomy your reply implies, is that without EA games making console and PC games, that there won't be such titles created. This is simply untrue; the removal of an obstructionist whore of a company like EA from that market will only create market opportunities for new game publishers. The money in console gaming isn't gone; it was simply denied to EA games. When other publishers continue to be profitable, after EA's death, it will create a real datapoint to cite when discussing the market impacts of obtrusive DRM, and refusing to listen to customer complaints.
Let EA games try to escape from the burning light. Just keep the magnifier on them, and they will dry up, just like the worms they are.
The intention was that what the law says is public, vs private, is not what the general public has in mind for that. The added joy of people unknowingly violating that law just underscores this fact, and only serves to show that the definitions used for legal applications are byzantine, and purposefully convoluted to serve a specific economic agenda.
Personally, I feel that the legal system is not supposed to be used in such a fashion; [to create specific legal categories of infringement, specifically to monetize clearly non-economic, and private activities via renumeration of court awarded fees and judgements.]
To me, such activities say two things:
1) There is an influential demographic that is suffering from an entitlement complex, who feels they are entitled to financial compensation for non-economic uses of things they have created, or any time a person other than their sublicensed client in any way accessess that intellectual property. Eg, they think they should be paid if I lend a book to a friend, and other stupid things.
2) this demographic has paid substantial sums of money to cuddle up with politicians, for the express purposes of having these definitions and categories of infringement, and accepted methods of renumeration drafted and signed into law.
I am apt to point out that a supreme court judge asserted that just because one has enjoyed a living performing a certain service for a time, does not mean that the courts are compelled to ensure their continued profit from that service, nor for the wheels of progress to be halted or reversed. (Paraphrased)
In other words, the interested parties lobbying for this legislation do not actually have a legitimate position from which to frame their demands, and the legal definitions in question should never have been drafted.
I read the words on the paper, silently, and to myself. Private performance.
I read the words aloud in my own home. The cats look at me like I am insane. (Because I probably am for reading aloud to them to begin with, since they can't comprehend the words I am speaking anyway.) Private performance.
I read aloud to my 3 year old niece from her favorite Dr Suess book. Private performance.
I read aloud in front of hundreds of people who paid to attend, or were otherwise asked to attend that reading. Public performance.
One of these things is not like the others. This isn't hard.
I like to do pixel art as a hobby, and is the main thing I would really love to do from my couch.
I have a LOT of fine motor control and muscle memory built up for fine manipulation of a mouse. A 3axis accellerometer stuck on my hand, and some way to capture finger taps would let me drive a "virtual" mouse with the exact same movements, right on the arm rest of my recliner. Far superior to dicking around with a tiny trackball, IMHO.
Touchpads are a non-starter, because you can't seamlessly press buttons and drag at the same time. (No, double tap+drag won't cut it.) Nevermind trying to use the right mouse button while doing such!
Let me use my existing motions, just from a different posture, and let me keep my hand empty.
It's true, my i7 I built has basically just sat (turned off) upstairs for nearly its entire lifetime so far. (An no, it's an xubuntu install, not windows.)
However, for me, the issue isn't the big iron. The issue is the interface devices.
I don't want to come home, from a long day of sitting in a desk, to spend even MOAR! Time sitting in a desk.
I want to sit on my couch. I want to turn on some soothing music, kick back and have some fun and relax. Console gaming is good for that, but I don't always want to play a video game. I actually DO do other things with computing devices, besides work and play games.
The stickler is the mouse. I need something like a mouse, that doesn't require me to wave my arms around, or point something incessantly at the TV/Big monitor. Reclining on the couch precludes using a normal mouse.
The other is the keyboard. I kinda like the tiny form factor of slideout keypads on phone devices, but hate the missing buttons. (Seriously, if I want to sit back on the couch and make a "just for fun" program, I actually kinda DO need all the buttons, M'kay?)
So, I have 2 simple ideas.
The first, is basically just a 3 axis accellerometer, and 2 EEG-like sensors, that gets worn on the right hand like a fingerless glove. (Leftie version for lefties). It uses the 2 electrical impulse sensors to capture a finger "tap" movement for the index and middle fingers, to determine mouse button press. The 3axis accellerometer sits on top of the hand, (low formfactor please.) And is used for tracking.
Couple this with an NFC in the small phone sized keyboard so that the "mouse" knows when it should shut up about gestures and finger movements (eg, you are holding the keyboard, s the NFC between the two devices let's them know to turn off the mouse temporarily.) So that you can just stab away with those thumbs.
Give me something like that, and then I can lounge on my couch without a big bulky keyboard, strained finger movements, and without fighting poorly placed buttons on a touchpad. Do that, and the PC will be very relavent in the livingroom.
[*please spare me the "anectdote != data" rhetoric.*]
I own a samsung sidekick 4g. Other than the horrible pink paint on the slider, it is a very good phone, with surprisingly strong innards for its age, comparable to what's inside many galaxy series devices.
(Specifically, 1ghz cortex A8 hummingbird CPU, and 768mb of memory.)
I got it for the sliding hardware keyboard.
The version of android it is stuck with? 2.2.1 Froyo.
Forever.
Why? It's not the cpu, though the powervr gpu is a bit cheesy compared to tegra based devices.
For all practical reasons involved (but one, getting to that.) It should easily be able to handle at least gingerbread. But it will never get it.
Why? The hardware keyboard uses a clusterfuck of a driver, that was never ported to gingerbread based kernels, and won't work on gingerbread based kernels. Other fun features about how the phone was put together make it unfriendly to develop for as well, and even the XDA folks assert it is likely a lost cause.
*THAT* is the real reason these devices are not getting these updates. The phones have been designed with a very short product lifecycle, were cobbled together quick, use buggy device drivers that don't comply with any kind of standard, and are just plain nightmarish to support long term.
The handet makers want you to buy, the trash, environment be damned! They cut corners on things, make foolish architectural decisions, and divert attention away with their newest offering of "the new shiny!".
A set of standards and practices and design requirements would do faaaaaaaar more than this aclu suit would. The android phone ecosystem is what the internet would look like without RFC guidelines.
Imposing some simple rules about long term support is nice and all, but imposing rules about standards and practices with penalties for violations would go a lot further.
There really *was* an option to disable metro and ribbon UIs in the win8 release candidate.
Microsoft said "bend over and squeal with delight!" When they removed it from the final, and kept pounding away, ignoring the protests of their users, instead making grunting noisesof their own that users will "get used to it", and "you'll like it, I promise!"
There's a lesson here, and it isn't exactly Microsoft that needs to learn it, because the *exact same* bullshit has happened 2 other places in Gnome3 and Unity.
That lesson? If you are a UI "designer", DON'T FORCE YOUR "VISION" ON USERS. In business, the *customer* is always right, not your personal sense of aesthetic bliss.
Gnome's hamfisted refusal to accept that is why most of their userbase flew the coop. Unity on Ubuntu is why many users fled to Mint. And on win32, Metro is why users refuse to migrate to 8.
The lesson here applies all around. If people want tacky, they want tacky. If somebody orders a double cheeseburger, don't try to force them to eat caviar, while insisting it's classier. It isn't what they want, and they won't come back.
Caviar is nice as an option, but don't force the issue. Your* personal foibles about seeing tacky UIs only matter to YOU. Wear the shoe on the other foot, and imagine a world where only BBQ and cheeseburgers exist, and are what get enforced, preventing you from even trying caviar. That is what you do to people when you deny them the options they want. People don't need a reason to have a preference, and some prefer the tacky UI paradigms. Respect that preference, and keep your userbase.
*this is meant to sound confrontational, but does not apply to any specific person. If you are a UI designer, and try the BS cited, it applies to you. If you are not, naturally, it does not.
On a windfarm down in Nantucket, Some rich bastards there tried to fuck it. But the press badges stopped by, And they invoked the public's eye, Who then told all the fuckers to shove it.
In Japan they feel it's a must, To rid themelves of nuclear dust, So they dropped a fat cheque On said windfarm's deck To help them win the public's trust.
Due to the fortunes that they hold dear, Of these bastards, it is abundantly clear: All projects they will attempt to defraud, To keep construction out of Cape Cod Using rhetoric both truthful and smear.
So, they want to create a new enthusiast market, where people with heat guns remove the BGA chips, put them on a PGA riser, and put a ZIF socket on where the BGA pads are.
I would be sorely tempted to do that myself in such a world.
Seriously, who are these people fooling?..Then again, people get awfully tired of fighting the same battle over and over again, and often eventually just concede. We need to propose legislation outright forbidding this kind of shit. It's really the only way, else they will just keep shuffling commas and semicolons around in the text, and resubmitting.
I noticed that if you hook up the classic pad, you can control the pointer with the thumbsticks.
If you were put off by the GUI interface's pointer requiring you to aim the wiimote at the screen, this might alleviate the developer strain involved.
Considering that the Wii is totally a hacker's paradise now (threat of new, crippling firmware is basically officially over) and that it has good USB2.0 ports on the back, and a fairly mature homebrew toolchain, I would think that this is the starting shot to see lots of stuff for the console come out.
I would laugh hysterically if the Wii has a rebirth from the very software Nintendo tried so desperately to stamp out.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't aware of RTV silicones?
Those are goopy/paste-like, and react with the air to become firm rubber. You know, basically paste gasket maker that you get at the autoparts store. You know, the stuff you seal oil pans and differential boxes with?
As someone who makes both quality sprites in MSPaint, and who makes high detail NURBS models, I must voice my disagreement with your statement.
Creating the NURBS objects is easier.
From what I can see, the problem comes from trying to use a low polygon editor to try and make a high polygon model, that can then be printed. It's like using a butterknife like a screwdriver. You *can* do it, but the tool is not the correct one.
I use cad software to make quality objects. Being NURBS solids, I can polygonize them as tightly or as loose as I want. Also, being closed solids, I don't have flipped verticies, holes/gaps, crappy intersections, non-manifold polygons, or any of the other issues that tools like blender or milkshape end up with.
Again, it's easier (for me at least) to make nurbs objects suitable for 3d printing than it is to make good sprites in MSPaint, and I know this, because can and do both.
The real obstacle for me? It costs 1000$ minimum for a device that can just barely squirt out a .5mm dia filament of plastic, with 2.5 axis motions.
At least add a rotation table and a trunion. That way previously unbuilable models with long extremities could be built. (Think: a person with arms straight out. The plastic is too soft after extruding to stay straight with a reprap or similar. Gravity causes sag.) Just move the trunion, and build coils with rotabl syntax.
Seriously though, a repurposed commodity inkjet loaded up with a solvent and binder solution, with a descending build chamber, and a canister of baby powder would give better resolutions than current consumer grade extruders. Buy a throw away lexmark and rip the shell off, then wash the carts out, cut into one and install aquarium hose stopcocks, and attach that to a big reservoir of resin and solvent. Finally, build a dropdown chamber and a blade sweeper.
Wow! You just built basically what Z-corp offers!
(Here's a hint: for most people's needs, the "binder resin + solvent" can be elmer's white glue and water. More permanent if you use woodgue instead. Doesn't have to be a plastic resin.)
Make a hacked inkjet that does this, and make it cheap (200$ MAX price) and it *will* sell.
While a convenient fallacy, that isn't exactly true.
The term "agnostic" literally means "against knowledge." Or "without knowledge."
The agnostic truely is neither theistic (asserting a diety exists) nor atheistic (asserting a diety does not exist.)
Instead, the position of the agnostic is that claiming a god exists requires knowledge. (How else can you insist it exists, without knowing something others don't?) The same is true for asserting that the nonesxistence of a deity is what is true.
The agnostic's position is literally "I don't know, but it is theoretically possible."
It is theoretically possible that a god of some form exists, has perfect knowledge of the world, and operates outside of normal time and space, resulting in all interventions by that being have the same characteristics of random chance, as measured by the universe's inhabitants.
(Here's a little game to help here. We have 2 people playing russian roulette. Presumably, there are 4 chambers that are empty, and one with a live round. They spin the chambers, and pull the trigger. They have agreed to only one turn each. The influence of this hypothetical god would simply remove the possibility of the loaded chamber being the one stopped on. The participants would simply view the outcome as improbable. The outcome is still indestiguishable from random chance, and thus can't be used as proof of this being's existence, even though it interveined.)
Such a being would fundementally leave no evidence of its existence, even while prodding the universe. Loaded questions about why "evil" exists, and why "bad things" happen are specious: I never said the deity needs to be benevolent. Benevolence is not a required criterium.
Since this deity can exist without leaving evidence, it can't be disproven. Asserting that it DOESN'T exist requires knowledge. From whence does one gain this knowledge?
Again, I do not assert that it DOES definitively exist either. That wasn't the message here. (Because that too would require knowldge, and I have none.) The point was that it COULD exist, and that no test conceivable in this universe could disprove this hypothetical being, since it leaves no evidence of its existence that we can detect, being extradimensional in nature.
As such, lacking knowledge either in support or in denunciation of such a being existing, I cannot be either a theist, who asserts it *is* real without question, or can I be an atheist who asserts that it *is not* real without question.
The question cannot be satisfactorally be answered.
I am agnostic. I am not atheist. I am not theist. Don't lump me in with either to suit your own agendas.
Incorrect.
To assert bombastically that there are no gods, one MUST not have a belief in the existence of gods.
Thus, the subset cannot be excluded from the larger set. The subset does not have a well defined moniker. Calling them "atheists" is a crude fit, but functionally still correct. Some have suggested "strong atheists" for a better term.
Unlike the car analogy you used, (were an antiFord true believer(tm) can hold that position independently of being "anti car") the strong atheist has no rational capacity to hold their belief, without first holding the first belief.
Eg, to believe in the nonexistence of all gods, one must first have a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
They don't word it that way, because it clearly smacks of being incorrect.
Instead, they make assertions like this:
"Atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief of lack."
There is an implied exclusion: "the belief of lack is not the lack of belief", via the principle of inversion.
This does not hold, as the belief in the lack of something REQUIRES the lack of belief in that thing.
Observe:
"I don't believe in your god's divine power." (Lack of belief)
"I believe your god does not exist." (Belief of lack.)
In order to hold the second, one must also hold the first. One must believe that a person's god has no power, in order to believe that their god does not exist. It is irrational to hold the latter without the former. How can something unreal, have divine power?
The no true scottsman appears, when an agent who holds both, acts on the latter, and the athiestic apologist spouts this rhetoric.
I find your hyperbole both insulting, and hypocritical.
"Unfounded" is not equivalent to "false."
This has several formal proofs to qualify it. You assertion that testable reality is true, while simultaneous commiting this logical error in such a bombastic fashion, is hypocrisy of a high order.
Undefined is undefined. False and undefined are not equivalent.
The lack of belief in a (plus) god does not preclude the belief in the (minus) god.
In fact, beleiving in the (minus) god has the lack of belief in a (plus) god as a prerequisite.
To believe no gods exist, one MUST hold no beliefs in the existence of gods.
You assertion that atheism means "I don't believe in a god", and is defacto exclusive of the "I believe in no gods" is not logical, no matter how much you try to misrepresent it as being so.
Your rebuttle is improper.
Atheism as a position does not preclude the notion of religiously thinking adherents of that position.
Dodging behind the no true scottsman is disingenuous.
Rather, you should assert that this evaluation does not apply to YOU, personally.
[To clarify: Atheism is a position: adherents of that position do not have a beleif in the existence of a deity, as stated. However, this position does NOT preclude the latter part of your statement: the belief in the nonexistence of deities. An adherent of the position can simultaneously hold both, because they are not exclusive. Asserting that individuals that have this second position are not atheists is insupportable, and draws from a false premise. The assertion that because atheism does not require this second term that the accusation is incorrect does not hold. I remand you to formal logic: "A is false AND B is true" returns true.
!A and !B == false
A and !B== true
!A and B == true
A and B == true
Poster asserts table entry 2 above. You assert table entry 1. As stated, this is not a correct evaluation.
Because atheism as a set contains individuals who hold the lack of existence of all gods as true, and the assertion of knowledge about gods is what defines religion, those atheists are religious atheists. (Even if the claimed knowledge about such gods, is that they do not exist.)
Careful there. There's a pit.
Should said atheist wish to stamp out religion because they hold a personal BELIEF that all beliefs in a diety are madness, and need to be expunged for the greater good, they are comitting the exact same mental gymnastics that a crazy diest does to justify jihad, etc.
The fact that the beleif is NOT about supporting an unjustifiable favoritism for a specific god, but isntead about supporting the unjustifiable favoritism toward having NO gods, does NOT make it non-religious. The "religion" is the unwaivering belief that they are correct in their assertions, same as the deist, and the same as "diehard" communists, nazi socialists, whatevers.
Atheism as a religious dogma shares a closer kinship with devout practitioners of those later, clearly secular ideologies than it does with any higher power, but is still clearly a form of religous zeal, and that zeal certainly does have motivational potential.
Arguments like these attempt to claim correctness through desceptive definitions.
Asserting something as being true without supportive evidence is true belief.
Some atheists assert they cannot know definitively if a god exists or not, but that they have seen no evidence to support the assertion that one does. (Hypothetical orbital teapots, invisible unicorns, etc. One cannot prove they do not exist, but likewise, no evidence exists to say that they do exist either.) This is sensible atheism, founded on reason and rationality. They typically don't have an agenda or opinion about people who do believe in a deity. They simply don't share that belief.
Then there are "atheists" who jump the shark. They assert that belief in a deity is a form of insanity, and claim that the nonexistence of divine beings is objective fact. Such an assertion falls victim to the same illogical mental processes as fundementalist deism does. Because there *ISNT* proof of the nonexistence of such beings, their assertion is one of true beleif, and is very much religious. The 'god' they believe in is the 'anti-god', for lack of a better term. Literally, the beleif that no god exists, and that believing in one is insanity. (No holds barred, and are very rude about it.)
Usually when a deist referrs to "athiesm" as a religion, they are referring to this latter demographic.
I seem to remember going rounds with you on this before, but refusal to acknowledge the clearly religious zeal of this latter demographic is simply disingenuous.
Clearly, your mental conception of "mouse" hasn't changed from the offerings of the 90s optical wheel with rolling ball kind. The kind that required picking the mouse up, and repositioning it (several times) to get across the desktop.
You can turn a modern optical mouse's sensitivity up to the point where a simple twitch of the wrist is able to achieve this same result. I know, because I set the sensitivity up that high for just that reason. I hate trackballs, because I can't achieve the same degrees of interaction that I can with a modern optical mouse. (Like multiclick hold downs + drag)
Would I buy something that lets me use a normal monitor like a touch screen? Sure! It would make a great addition to a MAME arcade cabinet, especially the "Pacman" style "lounge table" cabinet kind (which work better in a family room anyway.) It would make ROM selection much easier.
(A trackball would suffer the same issues that the trackballs in real 80s acrade cabinets had: getting funk all up inside them, having the sensors wear out, and all that fun.)
You are missing the point.
EA wants to get paid as much as possible, while changing as little as possible. That's why they are trying a desperate gambit to jump to mobile gaming. (They believe that the mobile gaming ecosystem is more friendly to obtrusive DRM, and they are partly right.)
The GP said that voting with his dollars is working: EA games is feeling heat under the collar. However, because of the above, they purposefully look away from the burning handwriting, and feel that leaving the building is the better solution. The GP's point was that we must inform that this will not work, by continueing to ostracise them as a company, for refusing to change their core policies which are so objectionable. The fact that they are trying to jump the shark like this is evidence that they feel threatened, and that this tactic is effective.
Continue to deny the cocksuckers money, and their costly pradigm shift and phyrric restructuring will leave them hemmoraging on the table.
The false dichotomy your reply implies, is that without EA games making console and PC games, that there won't be such titles created. This is simply untrue; the removal of an obstructionist whore of a company like EA from that market will only create market opportunities for new game publishers. The money in console gaming isn't gone; it was simply denied to EA games. When other publishers continue to be profitable, after EA's death, it will create a real datapoint to cite when discussing the market impacts of obtrusive DRM, and refusing to listen to customer complaints.
Let EA games try to escape from the burning light. Just keep the magnifier on them, and they will dry up, just like the worms they are.
The intention was that what the law says is public, vs private, is not what the general public has in mind for that. The added joy of people unknowingly violating that law just underscores this fact, and only serves to show that the definitions used for legal applications are byzantine, and purposefully convoluted to serve a specific economic agenda.
Personally, I feel that the legal system is not supposed to be used in such a fashion; [to create specific legal categories of infringement, specifically to monetize clearly non-economic, and private activities via renumeration of court awarded fees and judgements.]
To me, such activities say two things:
1) There is an influential demographic that is suffering from an entitlement complex, who feels they are entitled to financial compensation for non-economic uses of things they have created, or any time a person other than their sublicensed client in any way accessess that intellectual property. Eg, they think they should be paid if I lend a book to a friend, and other stupid things.
2) this demographic has paid substantial sums of money to cuddle up with politicians, for the express purposes of having these definitions and categories of infringement, and accepted methods of renumeration drafted and signed into law.
I am apt to point out that a supreme court judge asserted that just because one has enjoyed a living performing a certain service for a time, does not mean that the courts are compelled to ensure their continued profit from that service, nor for the wheels of progress to be halted or reversed. (Paraphrased)
In other words, the interested parties lobbying for this legislation do not actually have a legitimate position from which to frame their demands, and the legal definitions in question should never have been drafted.
I read the words on the paper, silently, and to myself.
Private performance.
I read the words aloud in my own home. The cats look at me like I am insane. (Because I probably am for reading aloud to them to begin with, since they can't comprehend the words I am speaking anyway.)
Private performance.
I read aloud to my 3 year old niece from her favorite Dr Suess book.
Private performance.
I read aloud in front of hundreds of people who paid to attend, or were otherwise asked to attend that reading.
Public performance.
One of these things is not like the others.
This isn't hard.
I like to do pixel art as a hobby, and is the main thing I would really love to do from my couch.
I have a LOT of fine motor control and muscle memory built up for fine manipulation of a mouse. A 3axis accellerometer stuck on my hand, and some way to capture finger taps would let me drive a "virtual" mouse with the exact same movements, right on the arm rest of my recliner. Far superior to dicking around with a tiny trackball, IMHO.
Touchpads are a non-starter, because you can't seamlessly press buttons and drag at the same time. (No, double tap+drag won't cut it.) Nevermind trying to use the right mouse button while doing such!
Let me use my existing motions, just from a different posture, and let me keep my hand empty.
Or NOT, because the touch interfaces on tablets aren't capable of doing what I want to do, and typing on the tablet is basically a retarded premise.
No, give me updated input devices, so I can lounge lazily on the couch, and keep the damn tablet.
It's true, my i7 I built has basically just sat (turned off) upstairs for nearly its entire lifetime so far. (An no, it's an xubuntu install, not windows.)
However, for me, the issue isn't the big iron. The issue is the interface devices.
I don't want to come home, from a long day of sitting in a desk, to spend even MOAR! Time sitting in a desk.
I want to sit on my couch. I want to turn on some soothing music, kick back and have some fun and relax. Console gaming is good for that, but I don't always want to play a video game. I actually DO do other things with computing devices, besides work and play games.
The stickler is the mouse. I need something like a mouse, that doesn't require me to wave my arms around, or point something incessantly at the TV/Big monitor. Reclining on the couch precludes using a normal mouse.
The other is the keyboard. I kinda like the tiny form factor of slideout keypads on phone devices, but hate the missing buttons. (Seriously, if I want to sit back on the couch and make a "just for fun" program, I actually kinda DO need all the buttons, M'kay?)
So, I have 2 simple ideas.
The first, is basically just a 3 axis accellerometer, and 2 EEG-like sensors, that gets worn on the right hand like a fingerless glove. (Leftie version for lefties). It uses the 2 electrical impulse sensors to capture a finger "tap" movement for the index and middle fingers, to determine mouse button press. The 3axis accellerometer sits on top of the hand, (low formfactor please.) And is used for tracking.
Couple this with an NFC in the small phone sized keyboard so that the "mouse" knows when it should shut up about gestures and finger movements (eg, you are holding the keyboard, s the NFC between the two devices let's them know to turn off the mouse temporarily.) So that you can just stab away with those thumbs.
Give me something like that, and then I can lounge on my couch without a big bulky keyboard, strained finger movements, and without fighting poorly placed buttons on a touchpad. Do that, and the PC will be very relavent in the livingroom.
I don't wholly agree with that.
[*please spare me the "anectdote != data" rhetoric.*]
I own a samsung sidekick 4g. Other than the horrible pink paint on the slider, it is a very good phone, with surprisingly strong innards for its age, comparable to what's inside many galaxy series devices.
(Specifically, 1ghz cortex A8 hummingbird CPU, and 768mb of memory.)
I got it for the sliding hardware keyboard.
The version of android it is stuck with? 2.2.1 Froyo.
Forever.
Why? It's not the cpu, though the powervr gpu is a bit cheesy compared to tegra based devices.
For all practical reasons involved (but one, getting to that.) It should easily be able to handle at least gingerbread. But it will never get it.
Why? The hardware keyboard uses a clusterfuck of a driver, that was never ported to gingerbread based kernels, and won't work on gingerbread based kernels. Other fun features about how the phone was put together make it unfriendly to develop for as well, and even the XDA folks assert it is likely a lost cause.
*THAT* is the real reason these devices are not getting these updates. The phones have been designed with a very short product lifecycle, were cobbled together quick, use buggy device drivers that don't comply with any kind of standard, and are just plain nightmarish to support long term.
The handet makers want you to buy, the trash, environment be damned! They cut corners on things, make foolish architectural decisions, and divert attention away with their newest offering of "the new shiny!".
A set of standards and practices and design requirements would do faaaaaaaar more than this aclu suit would. The android phone ecosystem is what the internet would look like without RFC guidelines.
Imposing some simple rules about long term support is nice and all, but imposing rules about standards and practices with penalties for violations would go a lot further.
There really *was* an option to disable metro and ribbon UIs in the win8 release candidate.
Microsoft said "bend over and squeal with delight!" When they removed it from the final, and kept pounding away, ignoring the protests of their users, instead making grunting noisesof their own that users will "get used to it", and "you'll like it, I promise!"
There's a lesson here, and it isn't exactly Microsoft that needs to learn it, because the *exact same* bullshit has happened 2 other places in Gnome3 and Unity.
That lesson? If you are a UI "designer", DON'T FORCE YOUR "VISION" ON USERS. In business, the *customer* is always right, not your personal sense of aesthetic bliss.
Gnome's hamfisted refusal to accept that is why most of their userbase flew the coop. Unity on Ubuntu is why many users fled to Mint. And on win32, Metro is why users refuse to migrate to 8.
The lesson here applies all around. If people want tacky, they want tacky. If somebody orders a double cheeseburger, don't try to force them to eat caviar, while insisting it's classier. It isn't what they want, and they won't come back.
Caviar is nice as an option, but don't force the issue. Your* personal foibles about seeing tacky UIs only matter to YOU. Wear the shoe on the other foot, and imagine a world where only BBQ and cheeseburgers exist, and are what get enforced, preventing you from even trying caviar. That is what you do to people when you deny them the options they want. People don't need a reason to have a preference, and some prefer the tacky UI paradigms. Respect that preference, and keep your userbase.
*this is meant to sound confrontational, but does not apply to any specific person. If you are a UI designer, and try the BS cited, it applies to you. If you are not, naturally, it does not.
On a windfarm down in Nantucket,
Some rich bastards there tried to fuck it.
But the press badges stopped by,
And they invoked the public's eye,
Who then told all the fuckers to shove it.
In Japan they feel it's a must,
To rid themelves of nuclear dust,
So they dropped a fat cheque
On said windfarm's deck
To help them win the public's trust.
Due to the fortunes that they hold dear,
Of these bastards, it is abundantly clear:
All projects they will attempt to defraud,
To keep construction out of Cape Cod
Using rhetoric both truthful and smear.
So, they want to create a new enthusiast market, where people with heat guns remove the BGA chips, put them on a PGA riser, and put a ZIF socket on where the BGA pads are.
I would be sorely tempted to do that myself in such a world.
There's a reason I called it "Dildo legislation" over a year ago. Twice!
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2916615&cid=40328257
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2970047&cid=40607175
"I guess we just have to try EVEN HARDER!"
Seriously, who are these people fooling? ..Then again, people get awfully tired of fighting the same battle over and over again, and often eventually just concede. We need to propose legislation outright forbidding this kind of shit. It's really the only way, else they will just keep shuffling commas and semicolons around in the text, and resubmitting.
I noticed that if you hook up the classic pad, you can control the pointer with the thumbsticks.
If you were put off by the GUI interface's pointer requiring you to aim the wiimote at the screen, this might alleviate the developer strain involved.
Considering that the Wii is totally a hacker's paradise now (threat of new, crippling firmware is basically officially over) and that it has good USB2.0 ports on the back, and a fairly mature homebrew toolchain, I would think that this is the starting shot to see lots of stuff for the console come out.
I would laugh hysterically if the Wii has a rebirth from the very software Nintendo tried so desperately to stamp out.
Not all nuclear powered pace makers are powered by betavoltaics.
Some indeed *are* small RTGs.